dr_nick_riviera wrote:Other than bitching on a forum, is there any way for us to push back on the NA agenda? I feel like a lot of people want to speak up in favor of things like denser development, lower to no parking minimums, more commercial developement, bike lanes, etc. etc. etc.

I feel as though showing up to my NA meeting and going against the agenda of the board and NIMBYs would ostracize me in the neighborhood. Not to mention the meetings happen infrequently and at times that aren't always convenient.

You are right to feel that way. The NAs are like an echo chamber against all those things you mention and suggest. If you dare speak against their "shared wisdom" you will quickly find your voice/suggestion drowned out because they own the majority in attendance. It's frustrating and a big turn off against participation by newcomers and it stifles the adoption of new ideas and perspectives. Your best bet is to recruit a cohort of neighbors which share some of your ideas and smartly pick your battles one at a time at each meeting.

Might want to simply form your own group. None of the NAs will get millions from developers and businesses. The right city-wide advocacy and community service group would.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:Other than bitching on a forum, is there any way for us to push back on the NA agenda? I feel like a lot of people want to speak up in favor of things like denser development, lower to no parking minimums, more commercial developement, bike lanes, etc. etc. etc.

I feel as though showing up to my NA meeting and going against the agenda of the board and NIMBYs would ostracize me in the neighborhood. Not to mention the meetings happen infrequently and at times that aren't always convenient.

You are right to feel that way. The NAs are like an echo chamber against all those things you mention and suggest. If you dare speak against their "shared wisdom" you will quickly find your voice/suggestion drowned out because they own the majority in attendance. It's frustrating and a big turn off against participation by newcomers and it stifles the adoption of new ideas and perspectives. Your best bet is to recruit a cohort of neighbors which share some of your ideas and smartly pick your battles one at a time at each meeting.

dtjcview wrote:I've no doubt a less confrontational stance with developers, would have yielded a much bigger community benefit. They could be sponsoring park upkeep, snow clearing, street maintenance and improvements, street festivals, citibike provisioning...

Have the NAs gotten any of that?

Other than bitching on a forum, is there any way for us to push back on the NA agenda? I feel like a lot of people want to speak up in favor of things like denser development, lower to no parking minimums, more commercial developement, bike lanes, etc. etc. etc.

I feel as though showing up to my NA meeting and going against the agenda of the board and NIMBYs would ostracize me in the neighborhood. Not to mention the meetings happen infrequently and at times that aren't always convenient.

I've no doubt a less confrontational stance with developers, would have yielded a much bigger community benefit. They could be sponsoring park upkeep, snow clearing, street maintenance and improvements, street festivals, citibike provisioning...

"Our goals are to increase public safety, promote the arts, and foster awareness of the historical past of The Village for its residents, and to the city of Jersey City as a whole."

Where does it say they get to dictate zoning based on the wants of a couple board members that will reverberate on the entire west side of downtown? I live a couple blocks south of the border cutoff, but I certainly patronize plenty of businesses in that area and would love to see more open up along with a revitalized streetscape. Make no mistake, this will affect property values in the surrounding blocks as well.

There was supposed to be a big meeting of the VNA with Candice in attendance. These NA websites are so infrequently updated, it's impossible to know what the outcome was and who the decision makers actually are. Not everybody has the time or work schedule that allows them to attend a meeting during the week.

you have not bothered to explain what is wrong with the VNA's position. people new and old that have come together, and organized themselves to make a better community for those that actually live there, not trolls, or developers or speculators. they made that area exciting along with embracing long time residents and businesses. its is VNA that directly or indirectly gave you First Street Park, 4th Street Arts, a cleaned up Mary Benson Park and contributed to a rejuvenated PS 5. It is they, not the city, planning or developers.[quote]

The VNA single handedly provided all of these services and single handedly cleaned up the neighborhood? Yah right. Let's not forget the old man Angelo who day in and day out cleaned all of the streets in the Village by himself for decades free of charge because he couldn't stand the trash or the sight of what was happening to this neighborhood. Or the big fairs we use to have in the park. Or the neighbors who shovelled snow for the elderly Village residents. How about the neighbors who actually know their neighbor's name and how many kids they have and keep a look out for their families. Or the neighbors who looked after each other during Hurricane Sandy. Those who shared power and helped clean out basements and offered food and bottled water. BTW thank you. Where was the VNA?

What about the businesses who are really struggling to keep their doors open but have decided to make the sacrifice for the sake of serving the community. The VNA does nothing like what they did in the old days (the 70's) to help businesses nor even in modern times like the other NHAs do for the merchants in their neighborhoods. If you so happen to listen to some of the resident stories back in the day the Village you'd learn that this neighborhood was filled with proud hard working families who supported one another and you'd also learn of how beautiful and vibrant the Village once was.

I have to ask myself what has the VNA done for me lately or ever? Okay the park? Thanks but how much Jersey City tax payer money was spent on it? Couldn't we have asked a developer to contribute or pick up the bill if the Village is selling its soul? Let's not forget that the VNA went to City Hall five years ago and advocated for the very same developer they now complain about who build numerous 4, 5 and 6 story buildings next to existing one and two family homes. What they did to third street is ashame! The VNA didn't care what the neighborhood had to say about it then -- so long as it didn't affect their homes. We were told that it was a good thing. It's a disaster threatening to destroying the neighborhood. Now the VNA wants to play hero in its attempt to restrict further development South of Newark Ave. Why? My speculations is that they're now losing control of the Village against the developers which has a very realistic potential of directly affecting their homes (which are South of Newark) and reputation.

VNA you can't undo the damage that has displaced so many families and friends because of greedy landlords and even greedier developers. The Village was once a charming quite part of town and the last affordable Downtown neighborhood. Now long-time residents (good people) can no longer afford to live here anymore and are being replaced by residents of the four, five and six storied luxury apartments being built. What single family two story home can compete against that?

I even had to come come out of retirement and go back to work in order to pay the rent in this neighborhood. The rent is still hard to meet and I am worried about the next time my landlord wants to increase the rent so I am deciding whether I should move out of Jersey City so I can live out my retirement without financial worries but I leave behind my family, friends and neighbors. I lived here all my life and I know of nowhere else. I know you are going to say that I should have bought a home and stop complaining but that still doesn't make things right.

Thank God for the HDSID. I'm more hopeful that they can do something for the Village residents and the struggling businesses than the nitwits who are running the VNA. We once supported them and trusted their wisdom but it hasn't gotten us nowhere since they made a deal with the devil, I mean developers.

JCGuys wrote:And yet another unintended f*ck up due to Fulop pushing off the reval for as long as he did. DanL makes an excellent point.

Irony is that downtown would have been better off if Fulop didn't interfere with the current one when it was underway. Now it has cost us over a million in legal fees and you bet appraisal companies are going to demand a premium for doing business in JC now because of our past shady undertakings. More unnessary costs.

Let's keep this on-topic pertaining to the zoning...there's a ~900 post thread bashing the reval.

And yet another unintended f*ck up due to Fulop pushing off the reval for as long as he did. DanL makes an excellent point.

Irony is that downtown would have been better off if Fulop didn't interfere with the current one when it was underway. Now it has cost us over a million in legal fees and you bet appraisal companies are going to demand a premium for doing business in JC now because of our past shady undertakings. More unnessary costs.

up-zoning the area will only push property values higher and with the upcoming revel push their values and taxes higher with little direct benefit to them other than forcing them to cash out and leave

Dan you make a very valid point! Seems like really bad timing just before the Reval!

For Village property owners that want to hunker down and not improve their properties, it is in their best interest to oppose the R-5 since their property values - and taxes would increase. It's a selfish because the move to R-5 would help taxpayers throughout the city. Look at Hoboken. There's constant improvement in the housing stock - extensive renovations, additions and tear downs replaced by higher value - higher taxed property.

Couldn't an argument be made that more housing, with equal to higher property values in the same land area would more evenly distribute the tax burden and actually help lower the taxes for some in downtown?

After all, how much is the city budget going to increase over the addition of 1-2 stories over what's already there? The amount of road/sidewalk/sewer/utility the city needs to maintain remains the same. And we're not talking about a terribly large swath of land, this is only a few square blocks.

up-zoning the area will only push property values higher and with the upcoming revel push their values and taxes higher with little direct benefit to them other than forcing them to cash out and leave

Dan you make a very valid point! Seems like really bad timing just before the Reval!

For Village property owners that want to hunker down and not improve their properties, it is in their best interest to oppose the R-5 since their property values - and taxes would increase. It's a selfish stance because the move to R-5 would help taxpayers throughout the city. Look at Hoboken. There's constant improvement in the housing stock - extensive renovations, additions and tear downs replaced by higher value - higher taxed property.

Suntime wrote:Brewster - it is most likely that the poster is a developer and aOne that is known to the village. He spends a lot of time here due to his business dealings. I am sure he gets mail here due to his business dealings but he does not live here. Lets just leave it at that. Its not a crackpot theory.

There already is a proposal that was worked on with the vna to update the zone. However, keep in mind thaT even if you increase the height to 4 stories, some developers won't stick to that - they will still seek variances for greater height and density. That is the biggest concern and what has been happening in the village. There are certain developers that are known for this. they want to steamroll anyone that stands in their way.

Your whole argument is based on assumptions, "what-ifs" and fear-mongering, not what's actually in front of you. Provide a single example of variances being granted en-masse in an area that was recently rezoned. The whole point of updating the zoning is to stop all the variance granting.

Brewster - it is most likely that the poster is a developer and aOne that is known to the village. He spends a lot of time here due to his business dealings. I am sure he gets mail here due to his business dealings but he does not live here. Lets just leave it at that. Its not a crackpot theory.

There already is a proposal that was worked on with the vna to update the zone. However, keep in mind thaT even if you increase the height to 4 stories, some developers won't stick to that - they will still seek variances for greater height and density. That is the biggest concern and what has been happening in the village.

Suntime wrote:Please keep in mind that the original poster is a developer that Seeks variances in the area - he lives out of town.

Just to promote clarity, that is just a crackpot theory of yours. I looked at his posts, they do center on property, but he claims to live here and has posted on other subjects. But why stick to facts when hysteria is so fun?

This has me more and more convinced that a lot of the neighborhood associations get their talking points faxed in from Yvonne. The NIMBY arguments get more unhinged and irrational every time something comes up. I'm surprised they haven't played the parking card yet.

Suntime wrote:Please keep in mind that the original poster is a developer that Seeks variances in the area - he lives out of town.

Just to promote clarity, that is just a crackpot theory of yours. I looked at his posts, they do center on property, but he claims to live here and has posted on other subjects. But why stick to facts when hysteria is so fun?

Suntime wrote:And if you travel over to the village you would see that the streets in the village are very narrow - much more narrow than, say, hamilton park area. its probably amongst the most narrow in all of jc. It is not the type of area that ever contemplated 6 story buildings. Its not the views that residents are concerned about.

Please keep in mind that the original poster is a developer that Seeks variances in the area - he lives out of town. He stands to make a lot of money. His real concern is his profit - not the long term well being of this community or city - or the thoughtful redevelopment of the area. Lets not get so eager for "change" that we allow anything to go up in the name of change, only to have regret 20 years from now when we are stuck with it.

And the proposed zoning is 4 stories, not 6. You can disagree with the original poster's motivations, but that doesn't mean the area doesn't desperately need rezoning and needs it in a non-discriminatory way. This is, again, a very transparent and cynical ploy by officers of a neighborhood association to manipulate property values and neighborhood demographics to their personal benefit.

It would also seem the only thing we seem to be regretting, 20 years later, is the crap housing that's gone up all over JC because of R1 zoning.

And if you travel over to the village you would see that the streets in the village are very narrow - much more narrow than, say, hamilton park area. its probably amongst the most narrow in all of jc. It is not the type of area that ever contemplated 6 story buildings. Its not the views that residents are concerned about.

Please keep in mind that the original poster is a developer that Seeks variances in the area - he lives out of town. He stands to make a lot of money. His real concern is his profit - not the long term well being of this community or city - or the thoughtful redevelopment of the area. Lets not get so eager for "change" that we allow anything to go up in the name of change, only to have regret 20 years from now when we are stuck with it.

I'm shocked to see a thread and petition actually in favor of re-zoning. Yes, the neighborhood needs to be re-zoned. The people opposed to re-zoning want their quaint little houses to stay that way at the same time that they want hip restaurants a few blocks away. Some of the complaints against the rezoning are so absurd.

Remember that some of this area of the village has a 6-9 foot flood zone elevation so every building already has to start that far up off the ground. So when you add that to the other stuff (for example a 4 story building needs an elevator which needs a bulk head on the roof another story tall) things start to really add up and that 44' building ends up being more like 60' or more and that does dwarf neighbors and start blocking more and more light.

I know personally that I don't mind if people build a story or so more within the standard lot coverage (and I definitely don't mind more options back here or some of the older crappier houses gone) but things seem to keep getting taken out of control and the 3 stories allowed end up being 6 story ask. Right now there are constant variances to allow 6 story in the current 3 story so what happens when 4 are allowed... does that mean 7 stories + 9 ft flood + bulkhead on the roof/stair wells to roof deck = ??? that would be closer to 100 ft and all of a sudden my 30' house is sandwiched in a block like the UP house

to be honest though, I would be fine with the new regulations if that was actually the end to the variances but the way things are in this city it worries me

Suntime wrote:we agree with DanL. The original poster, jcactivist, is almost certainly one of the developers that is seeking variances in the village to build multiple projects. Please note that while he builds in jersey city, he does not live here. He has no vested interest in this community other than making money. Of course they want variances so that they can jam more density in and make more money.

Who is this "we" and who do you claim to represent? A couple VNA members don't speak for all residents of the area. You want variances to end? Agree to a sensible zoning proposal. The decision makers in the VNA are certainly gaming this out to personally benefit themselves at the expense of a good chunk of the rest of their neighborhood, so I have no sympathy. Honestly, all this over a extra friggin story?

personally, keeping the zoning height seems dumb as hell. no offense to y'all in the village, but your views aren't the most exciting thing around, ya know. you've got a highway on one side, your neighbor on the other and... yea.

this isn't waterfront property or something where anyone really cares about the view too much about when they bought the place outside of still getting some light in one's yard - which is a perfectly valid concern, to be honest. but building up to 44, 50, 55, etc feet is not gonna wreck your life, nimbros and nimbettes. on my block alone, there are buildings of two, three, four and six stories. it isn't anarchy. no one's life has been topsy turvy.

i like that for example, the new construction where the old diner used to be by PS 5's playground is 4 or 5 stories (whichever it happens to be, i can't recall exactly off the top of my head). who gives the slightest of fux what height that building right next to the highway is? same with the one they're just starting construction on just across the street on newark. and the one on 25 division where that poor guy died a few weeks ago that's adding another story to the building.

they're phenomenal because they're on the edge of the area, so you won't even get anyone kvetching about the height because there's no backyards to get blocked off anyway. but even the existing ones - an extra 20 feet up here and there is not going to kill anybody's crappy view, the slightly less amount of sun you might get as a neighbor? tough titties. you'll live. move the high-light plants to the other side of the yard.

we agree with DanL. The original poster, jcactivist, is almost certainly one of the developers that is seeking variances in the village to build multiple projects. Please note that while he builds in jersey city, he does not live here. He has no vested interest in this community other than making money. Of course they want variances so that they can jam more density in and make more money.

NIMBY garbage. What about the people living in the area who *do* want higher property values and better businesses a higher density will bring? Cities change - the few vocal NIMBYs and septuagenarians that make up the VNA who are pushing this split zoning nonsense (or opposing it altogether) are not entitled to anything. They don't have a right to keep things "the way they are" to the chagrin of everybody else living around here.

you have not bothered to explain what is wrong with the VNA's position. people new and old that have come together, and organized themselves to make a better community for those that actually live there, not trolls, or developers or speculators. they made that area exciting along with embracing long time residents and businesses. its is VNA that directly or indirectly gave you First Street Park, 4th Street Arts, a cleaned up Mary Benson Park and contributed to a rejuvenated PS 5. It is they, not the city, planning or developers.

i do think we have capable planners, but I have also seen them act like they have a gun to their heads and compromised themselves to feed their families. JC is the wild west of government and thankfully there are people who get involved and care enough about their community to stand up and have the courage to push back.

the master plan has not been updated since 2000, long over due. where is the capacity to support increased density? it is not planned for.

up-zoning the area will only push property values higher and with the upcoming revel push their values and taxes higher with little direct benefit to them other than forcing them to cash out and leave.

where ever you are coming from, respect those that live and own there.

Quote:

JCActivist wrote:I just got a petition today that I signed in a heartbeat. It sounds like an unelected community board is dictating property values. Here is the petition:

"To Mayor Steven Fulop, the City of Jersey City, the City Council, Ward E Councilwoman Candice Osborne, the Division of City Planning, Senior Planner Tanya Marione, and Corporation CouncilWe, the undersigned, are homeowners, business owners and residents of the Village neighborhood who want to address the current concerns voiced by the City of Jersey City and our community regarding zoning variances granted in our neighborhood.We believe that with numerous requests for variances being filed every month, it is clear that the City needs to make a change to its archaic R1 zoning laws which were passed in an era when we could not have envisioned the growth and progress the City has achieved over the years. Over the past two years, both the City and the Division of City Planning have been working to find a solution. Now, they’ve finally come up with a way to keep our buildings at the existing maximum height of 44 feet while allowing our communities to continue growing.As passionate supporters of the growth of the Village neighborhood, we STRONGLY SUPPORT the City and Division of City Planning’s proposal to change the following existing limits for Zone R1, as we believe their recommendations carry the weight of years of outreach and professional planning:Current R1 Zoning:Maximum Height: 44 feet Maximum Stories: 3 Maximum Units: 2And we STRONGLY SUPPORT re-zoning the area as Zone R-5, with the following limits:Maximum Height: 44 feet Maximum Stories: 4 Maximum Units: 80/acre (4 total in standard lots)We also STRONGLY OPPOSE a request from the Village Neighborhood Association (VNA), which has pushed back against the City’s recommendation, to divide the Village into two zones along Newark Avenue, with different zoning for the North and South sides.We STRONGLY OPPOSE the VNA’s position that while the North side’s zoning should be consistent with the City’s recommendations, the South side’s height limit should be reduced to 31 feet, which is 13 feet less than the current allowable height of 44. We believe this arbitrary division is capricious, subjective, and unfairly discriminatory against the community that happens to own properties and businesses South of Newark Avenue in the Village. In our opinion, both the North and South sections of our neighborhood are equally subject to the same zoning issues and should not be treated separately.Furthermore, with the imminent citywide re-evaluation, many of our neighbors will be hit with higher taxes and the VNA’s “downzoning” proposal will threaten to greatly reduce property values South of Newark Ave compared to those North of it. We foresee additional litigation between these property owners and the city should the VNA’s proposal be accepted.Lastly, we STRONGLY OPPOSE the supposition that the VNA speaks for all the residents of the Village neighborhood inasmuch as their recommendations do not reflect a considerable number of residents’ and community members’ opinions in regards to this issue.We ask that this matter either be settled in favor of the City and the Division of City Planning’s recommendation or that the issue be brought forward for public discourse."

I just got a petition today that I signed in a heartbeat. It sounds like an unelected community board is dictating property values. Here is the petition:

"To Mayor Steven Fulop, the City of Jersey City, the City Council, Ward E Councilwoman Candice Osborne, the Division of City Planning, Senior Planner Tanya Marione, and Corporation CouncilWe, the undersigned, are homeowners, business owners and residents of the Village neighborhood who want to address the current concerns voiced by the City of Jersey City and our community regarding zoning variances granted in our neighborhood.We believe that with numerous requests for variances being filed every month, it is clear that the City needs to make a change to its archaic R1 zoning laws which were passed in an era when we could not have envisioned the growth and progress the City has achieved over the years. Over the past two years, both the City and the Division of City Planning have been working to find a solution. Now, they’ve finally come up with a way to keep our buildings at the existing maximum height of 44 feet while allowing our communities to continue growing.As passionate supporters of the growth of the Village neighborhood, we STRONGLY SUPPORT the City and Division of City Planning’s proposal to change the following existing limits for Zone R1, as we believe their recommendations carry the weight of years of outreach and professional planning:Current R1 Zoning:Maximum Height: 44 feet Maximum Stories: 3 Maximum Units: 2And we STRONGLY SUPPORT re-zoning the area as Zone R-5, with the following limits:Maximum Height: 44 feet Maximum Stories: 4 Maximum Units: 80/acre (4 total in standard lots)We also STRONGLY OPPOSE a request from the Village Neighborhood Association (VNA), which has pushed back against the City’s recommendation, to divide the Village into two zones along Newark Avenue, with different zoning for the North and South sides.We STRONGLY OPPOSE the VNA’s position that while the North side’s zoning should be consistent with the City’s recommendations, the South side’s height limit should be reduced to 31 feet, which is 13 feet less than the current allowable height of 44. We believe this arbitrary division is capricious, subjective, and unfairly discriminatory against the community that happens to own properties and businesses South of Newark Avenue in the Village. In our opinion, both the North and South sections of our neighborhood are equally subject to the same zoning issues and should not be treated separately.Furthermore, with the imminent citywide re-evaluation, many of our neighbors will be hit with higher taxes and the VNA’s “downzoning” proposal will threaten to greatly reduce property values South of Newark Ave compared to those North of it. We foresee additional litigation between these property owners and the city should the VNA’s proposal be accepted.Lastly, we STRONGLY OPPOSE the supposition that the VNA speaks for all the residents of the Village neighborhood inasmuch as their recommendations do not reflect a considerable number of residents’ and community members’ opinions in regards to this issue.We ask that this matter either be settled in favor of the City and the Division of City Planning’s recommendation or that the issue be brought forward for public discourse."